beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and for one year and six months, respectively.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
B is a person who is engaged in housing development projects by referring himself/herself to various executive directors of construction enterprises, such as E, F, G, and H Construction. Defendant A is the resident of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I Loan (hereinafter “I Loan”) 201, and the victim J is the owner of the same number of interest units of I Loan 202.
On November 2014, the Defendants received loans from the victims as collateral and appropriated them for the re-building project funds owned by the occupants who want to re-building the initial project expenses.
In addition, I made it false that the re-building project will be carried out in order to obtain a loan as collateral of 202 to use the money for re-building expenses, and after obtaining a re-building authorization, I would obtain a loan from the National Housing Fund or a financial institution to repay the money borrowed as collateral of 202."
However, in fact, the Defendants did not have obtained the full consent of the entire members of IBD, and they did not have any existing collateral loans and could not obtain any loan from the National Housing Fund. There was no specific plan for obtaining a loan from the National Housing Fund. There was no specific condition for obtaining a loan from the financial institution, and there was no specific method for preparing expenses for reconstruction projects due to the lack of the fact that the Defendants received a certain investment commitment from the financial institution. ③ Defendant B had a debt amounting to KRW 50 million, Defendant A had a debt amounting to KRW 150 million, Defendant A had a victim bear a debt amounting to KRW 150 million, Defendant A had a debt amounting to KRW 202,000,000, while there was no particular property or income, Defendant A did not have any intent or ability to obtain a loan from the victim as collateral, and ④ was considered to use the loan for an individual purpose unrelated to IBD reconstruction project.
Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with each other.